Download Report

1 SHARED BRAND AND INTERPERSONAL EXPERIENCES:
HOW CONSUMERS FORM RELATIONAL CONNECTIONS WITH BRANDS
Selcan Kara*, University of Connecticut
Anna J. Vredeveld*, University of Connecticut
This research examines how married consumers form relational brand connections. Findings
contribute to extant work on brand connections by showcasing how shared brand consumption
and marital satisfaction influence the nature of the consumer’s connection to the brand and the
perceived importance of the brand to the marital relationship. The research herein has important
theoretical contributions and managerial implications. From a theoretical perspective, we
examine the effect of how consumers incorporate brands into their personal relationships
(experiential vs. mundane), and resulting shared brand consumption, on consumers’ brand
evaluations. From a managerial perspective, our findings address important implications
especially in the advertising domain.
* Authors contributed to the research equally, and listed in the alphabetical order.
2
SHARED BRAND AND INTERPERSONAL EXPERIENCES:
HOW CONSUMERS FORM RELATIONAL CONNECTIONS WITH BRANDS
Marketing campaigns often encourage consumers to share their consumption with close
others. For example, Coca-Cola’s recent “share a Coke” campaign encourages consumers to
share their Coca-Cola consumption experience with friends, and Nutella’s “rise and shine”
campaign inspires families to have breakfast together, and enjoy Nutella as part of that familial
breakfast experience. The idea that brands may benefit from shared consumption is intuitively
appealing. Indeed, brands are part of our identity narratives (Escalas 2004; Fournier 1998; Sprott
et al. 2009) and our identities are shaped by the relationships we forge with others (Anderson and
Chen 2002; Aron et al. 1992; Brewer and Gardner 1996). Thus, it seems likely that consumers
may form particularly strong relationships with brands that they consume together with people
they love and care for.
This research examines how married individuals form connections with brands that they
consume together with their spouses. When an individual establishes a romantic relationship, he
or she expands the self-concept to include the relational partner (Aron and Aron 1986; Aron et
al. 1992) and marriage, in particular, involves the construction of a relational identity (Brewer
and Gardner 1996; Fincham et al. 1997). Importantly, engaging in shared experiences, such as
recreational activities, improves marital satisfaction (Orthner and Mancini 1990, 1991), in part
because when couples engage in such activities, they are “reinforcing a sense of interdependence
and closeness” (Aron et al. 2000, 274). We expand on this premise by exploring how shared
brand consumption influences brand connections. Specifically, in line with extant research on
marriage and self-expansion, we propose that a married individual who consumes a brand with
his or her spouse forms a brand connection that is anchored in the relational (marriage) identity
3
(i.e., “this brand is part of who we are”), rather than the self-identity (“this brand is part of who I
am”).
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Previous research documents that consumers forge connections with brands to “construct
the self or communicate the self-concept to others” (Escalas and Bettman 2003, p. 339). Most
extant work has focused on self-identity and social-identity motives underlying brand
consumption (Escalas and Bettman 2005; Sprott et al. 2009), often highlighting the importance
of brands to identity signaling (Berger and Ward 2010; Chan et al. 2012). The social context is
central to the development of self-brand connections because the nature and prevalence of
reference groups influence consumers’ reliance on brands to communicate association or
dissociation with others (Bearden and Etzel 1982; Berger and Heath 2007; Escalas and Bettman
2003). However, as a consequence of the self-identity signaling focus of previous research, brand
consumption has mostly been considered in relation to a given social context, without
consideration of how brands become part of a social entity. Anderson and Chen (2002, p. 619)
argue that the “self is relational-or even entangled-with significant others.” Thus, relational
partners are important to identity construction because individuals may expand their self-concept
to include important others, such as romantic relationship partners (Aron and Aron 1986; Aron et
al. 1992). In particular, individuals who are in a close relationship with each other form a
relational identity (Brewer and Gardner 1996) that may have profound influences on the
relationship partners, even resulting in convergence of preferences, personality, and emotional
responses (Anderson, et al. 2003; Guttman and Zohar 1987). Thus, a consumer who has
established a close relationship with another consumer may, as a consequence, form connections
with brands by incorporating them into this relational identity.
4
In this research, we focus on a particular type of relational identity, marriage, and its
impact on the formation of brand connections. Marriage is a particularly familial and uniting
relationship that involves sharing of resources and life experiences (Girgis et al. 2010).
Specifically, marriage involves a myriad of social exchanges in which the spouses adjust
according to their relationship (Davidson 1984). Importantly, because marriage is a formal
relational institution, it is regulated by laws, norms, and informal expectations (Yodanis and
Lauer 2014) and has patterns and regularities that are manifested in spouses’ actions and
behaviors (Lauaer and Yodanis 2010; Nee 2005). Moreover, because marriage is a form of
relationship that requires explicit attachment and commitment to another individual, it is also
characterized by shared economic and emotional resources (Ross 1995) that provide support
mechanisms benefiting spouses’ physiological and psychological well-being (Ross et al 1990).
Importantly, given the purpose of this research, married individuals also engage in shared
experiences as part of their marital relationship. Shared experiences are particularly important to
marital bonding (Herridge et al. 2003); and shared leisure activities have been shown to facilitate
relational identity construction (Fincham et al. 1997) and improve marital satisfaction (Hill 1988;
Orthner and Mancini 1990, 1991). Hence, shared leisure activities increase “relationship
satisfaction because they are intrinsically enjoyable and by being shared become associated with
the partner and the relationship” (Aron et al. 2000, 274).
Given this importance of marriage to life experience and identity construction, we
propose that married consumers may form a specific relational brand connection with brands that
they consider to be part of their relational “marital” identity. Specifically, because shared
experiences foster feelings of interconnectedness and interdependence (Aron et al. 2000) by
5
bonding the spouses to one another (Herridge et al. 2003), we propose that the inclusion of a
brand into the marital relational identity is facilitated through shared consumption of the brand.
Are All Shared Consumption Experiences Created Equal?
Extant research suggests that the marital “utility” derived from shared experiences may
differ depending on the nature of shared experiences that spouses engage in (Johnson et al. 2006;
Freeman and Zabriskie 2003). For example, Aron et al. (2000) document that experiences
perceived as more “exciting” (e.g., skiing, hiking, dancing) were related to stronger relationship
quality. Research on consumption of experiences also suggests that although “memories of
mundane experiences help individuals navigate through daily life, memories of extraordinary and
meaningful life events have important consequences for self-definition, well-being, and life
satisfaction” (Zauberman, et al. 2009, p. 715). Thus, we argue that the experiential nature of
shared brand consumption should have an impact on formation of a relational brand connection.
Further, although mundane shared consumption (i.e., routine/everyday brand use) is more
frequent/common, shared brand consumption defined as “special” (i.e., out of the ordinary)
should be more important for formation of relational brand connections than shared “mundane”
brand consumption.
H1: Shared “special”, compared to “mundane”, brand consumption leads to stronger
relational brand connection
Moreover, because marital satisfaction reflects how marriage lives up to expectations
regarding experiences and interactions as a married couple (Ward et al. 2009), we suggest that
such marital satisfaction will influence relational brand connection. Thus, after statistically
controlling for the effect of shared brand consumption, we expect a positive effect of marital
satisfaction on formation of relational brand connections.
6
H2: Marital satisfaction leads to increased relational brand connection (after controlling
for shared brand experiences).
Perceived brand importance has been established as a salient dimension of brand
relationships (Ashworth et al. 2009). We propose that the formation of a relational brand
connection should increase the perceived importance of the brand to the marital relationship.
H3: Relational brand connection leads to increased perceived importance of the brand to
the marital relationship.
Further, because marriage is so central to self-identity construction, we expect relational
brand connection to influence how the married consumer feels about the brand. Previous
research suggests that spouses’ interactions facilitate a sense of interconnectedness and
codependence (Aron et al. 2000) that is reflected in individual spouses’ thoughts and behaviors
(Anderson, et al. 2003; Guttman and Zohar 1987). Thus, brands that are perceived as being more
important to the marital relationships should also be more preferred by the individual, as
reflected in attitudes, purchase intentions, affect towards the brand and separation distress if the
brand is discontinued:
H4: Perceived importance of the brand to the marital relationship leads to increases in (a)
favorable attitudes towards the brand, (b) purchase intentions for the brand, (c) affection
for the brand and (d) anticipated separation distress experienced if the brand is
discontinued.
STUDY
We conducted a 2 condition (type of shared brand consumption: special vs. mundane)
between-subjects experiment to understand how the nature of shared brand consumption within a
marriage influences relational brand connection. Data were collected from MTurk workers (n =
7
580 ; 51% females, 53% married less than 5 years; 95% married to opposite-sex spouse).Each
participant was randomly assigned to one of the two conditions, and asked to write the name of a
brand that was reflective of either special or mundane shared consumption (each had a different
description for shared use). In the shared special brand consumption condition participants read
the following text describing how to select a brand:
This brand should be part of the special experiences you share as a couple. For example,
this brand can be a brand that you use together as a part of your special
occasions/memories; such as anniversary celebrations or date-nights out, or in your
shared special experiences; such as enjoying special hobbies/activities together as a
couple.
In contrast, for the mundane shared consumption condition, the description of the brand use was
as follows:
This brand should be part of the everyday life you share as a couple. For example, this
brand can be a brand that both you and your spouse use frequently as part of your daily
life or a brand that is convenient and/or beneficial to your daily routine as a couple.
Participants reported 304 different brands from a variety of product categories, including
technology (22%), food/beverages (18%), restaurants (11%), personal hygiene/cosmetics (9%),
cars (8%), hobbies/sports (7%), and sexual (3%).Throughout the survey, participants answered
questions related to this “focal” brand. We measured marital satisfaction using the 16-item
version of the Couple Satisfaction Index (CSI; Frunk and Rogge 2007), deemed appropriate
because it measures an individual’s (rather than the couple’s) satisfaction with a relationship.
Relational brand connection was measured by adapting Escalas and Bettman’s (2003) self-brand
connection scale, replacing all first person singular pronouns (i.e., I, me) in the items with first
person plural pronouns (i.e., we, us). We adapted measures of brand use and importance from
Ashworth et al. (2009). We measured attitudes and purchase intentions using 3-item 7-point
8
bipolar scales for each. Finally, we used established measures of brand affection (Thomson et al.
2005) and brand separation distress (Park et al. 2010).
Data Analysis and Results
To ascertain that the manipulation of “special” and “mundane” brand experience was
successful, we ran a t-test on three manipulation check items (e.g., Participants were asked to
indicate how they use the brand on 8-point bipolar scales such as 1 = Everyday experiences, 2 =
Special experiences). The three items loaded on a single factor with factor loadings higher than
.90 (Cronbach’s α = .95) and thus were averaged for the manipulation check. In support of our
special versus mundane shared brand consumption manipulation, the results indicate that
participants use the brand for “special” purposes more in the special condition (M = 4.22) than in
the mundane condition (M = 1.98, t(578) = 12.78, p < .01). Although we treat marital satisfaction
(CSI) as an individual difference variable, we tested the interaction effect of marital satisfaction
across the special versus mundane conditions on the relational brand connection. We median
split the CSI scale, and ran a 2 (CSI: high vs. low) x 2 (use: special vs. mundane) ANOVA. In
support of our expectation, the results document that although CSI (F(1, 576) = 22.74, p < .01)
and Use (F(1, 576) = 13.42, p < .01) were factors that significantly affect relational brand
connections, their interaction was not significant (F(1, 576) = .02, p > .8). Specifically,
participants in the “special” condition (M = 5.06) reported significantly stronger relational brand
connection than participants in the “mundane” condition (M = 4.64, F(1, 576) = 13.42, p < .01).
Similarly, participants who have greater marital satisfaction (M = 5.12) reported significantly
stronger relational brand connection than participants who have low marital satisfaction (M =
4.58, F(1, 576) = 22.74, p < .01).
9
Prior to hypothesis testing, confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to estimate the
measurement model in AMOS; the measurement model had an acceptable fit with the following
Goodness-of-fit indices: χ2 (607) = 1265.78.5, p < .01; CMIN/d.f. = 2.1; NFI = .95; RFI = .94;
IFI = .97; TLI = .97 and CFI = .97(Bagozzi and Yi 1988). The RMSEA was .043 with a 90%
confidence interval ranging from .04 to .047 (PCLOSE = 1.00). All factor loadings were positive
and significant (p < .01), and construct reliabilities were sufficient and between .80 and .98; the
AVE of each construct was higher than the squared correlations between any pair of constructs.
To test the structural model, as suggested by Edwards et al. (2012), we used dummy codes
(mundane = 0; special = 1) in order to interpret the differential effect of “special”, compared to
“mundane, shared brand use. We included CSI in the model to examine the effect of “special”
use after controlling for the effect of marital satisfaction (CSI) on relational brand connection.
This structural model had an acceptable fit with Goodness-of-fit indices: χ2 (657) = 1398.3, p <
.01; CMIN/d.f. = 2.12; NFI = .95; RFI = .94; IFI = .97; TLI = .97 and CFI = .97. The RMSEA
was .044 with a 90% confidence interval ranging from .041 to .047 (PCLOSE = .99). All paths
were significant (See table 1 and figure 1).
Insert Table 1 and Figure 1 about here
In support of H1, after controlling for the effect of marital satisfaction (CSI), the
differential effect of experiential versus mundane consumption on relational brand connection
was significant (β = .19). Specifically, shared special, compared to mundane, brand
consumption, led to stronger relational brand connection, after controlling for marital
satisfaction. Similarly, accounting for the effect of special versus mundane shared brand
consumption, marital satisfaction (CSI) significantly increased relational brand connection (β =
.29) (H2), which resulted in an increase in perceived importance of the brand to the marital
10
relationship (β = .94) (H3). Moreover, greater importance of the brand to the marital relationship
was associated with more favorable attitude towards the brand (β = .41) (H4a), stronger purchase
intention for the brand (β = .12) (H4b), more affection toward the brand (β = .77) (H4c), and
more separation distress if the brand is discontinued (β = .71) (H4d). Thus, in support of our
hypotheses, we documented the effect of marital satisfaction and special versus mundane shared
brand use on formation of relational brand connection, which led to importance of the brand to
the marital relationship, which positively influenced individual branding outcomes.
RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Our research makes several important contributions to the literature on brand connections
and interpersonal consumption. First, although previous research has examined social aspects of
brand connections, the primary focus of this work has been on the importance of reference
groups to the construction of self-brand connections (Escalas and Bettman 2003). From this
perspective, consumers forge stronger connections with brands that align with their social
identity motives (Escalas and Bettman 2005). However, a consumer’s “self” is not only
constructed in relation to other people, but also includes important others, such as romantic
relationship partners (Anderson and Chen 2002; Aron and Aron 1986). In this research, we
showcase how such codependent aspects of the consumers’ identity influence the formation of
brand connections. Second, in contrast to previous research, we move beyond identity signaling
motives to shed light on how experiential aspects of brand consumption influence brand
connections. Although “brand experience” has received increased attention by consumer
behavior scholars (Brakus et al. 2009), this extant research has primarily focused on the
experiential attributes of brands, rather than the experiential aspects of brand consumption. In
contrast, our research considers different ways in which consumers experience brands as a part
11
of their relationships, and how the nature of the consumption context (i.e., mundane vs. special
shared brand consumption) influences to what extent consumers feel connected to the brand.
Finally, our research makes important contributions to work on interpersonal consumption.
Specifically, we examine the moderating role of marriage satisfaction on the formation of brand
connections, thus showcasing how and when interpersonal relationships influence brand
relationships.
This study offers new insights into shared brand consumption and interpersonal
relationships, and opportunities for future research. For example, for shared experiential versus
mundane brand consumption, we did not control for product category. On one hand, this enabled
us to increase the robustness and generalizability of our findings, by showing that shared
experience versus mundane consumption is related to how consumers incorporate the brand into
their marital relationship, and how they experience the shared consumption. On the other hand,
not controlling for the product category such as, mundane versus experiential or special, or
hedonic versus utilitarian, can be deemed to be a limitation. Thus, we believe controlling for the
product category and its potential effect can be a future research avenue.
REFERENCES
Andersen, S. M., & Chen, S. (2002), “The Relational Self: An Interpersonal Social-Cognitive
Theory,” Psychological Review, 109, 619–645.
Anderson, Cameron, Dacher Keltner, and Oliver P. John (2003), “Emotional Convergence
between People over Time,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (5), 105468.
Aron, Arthur and Elaine N. Aron (1986), Love and the Expansion of Self: Understanding
Attraction and Satisfaction, New York, NY: Hemisphere.
Aron, Arthur, Elaine N. Aron, and Danny Smollan (1992), “Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale
and the Structure of Interpersonal Closeness,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63 (4), 596-612.
Aron, Arthur, Christina C. Norman, Elaine N. Aron, Colin McKenna, and Richard E. Heyman.
(2000), “Couples’ Shared Participation in Novel and Arousing Activities and
Experienced Relationship Quality,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78 (2)
273-84.
12
Ashworth, Laurence, Peter Dacin, and Matthew Thomson (2009), “Why on Earth Do Consumers
Have Relationships with Marketers? Toward Understanding the Functions of Brand
Relationships,” in Handbook of Brand Relationships, Ed. Deborah J. MacInnis, C. Whan
Park, and Joseph Priester, Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 82-106.
Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of Structural Equation Models,”
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16 (1), 74-94.
Bearden, William O. and Michael J. Etzel (1982), “Reference Group Influence on Product and
Brand Purchase Decisions,” Journal of Consumer Research, 9 (September), 183-94.
Berger, Jonah, and Chip Heath (2007), “Where Consumers Diverge from Others: Identity
Signaling and Product Domains,” Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (2), 121-34.
Berger, Jonah and Morgan Ward (2010), “Subtle Signals of Inconspicuous Consumption,”
Journal of Consumer Research, 37 (4), 555-69.
Brakus, J. Joško, Bernd H. Schmitt, and Lia Zarantonello (2009), “Brand Experience: What is it?
How is it Measured? Does it Affect Loyalty?” Journal of Marketing, 73 (3), 52-68.
Brewer, Marilynn B. and Wendi Gardner (1996), “Who is this “We”? Levels of Collective
Identity and Self-Representations,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71 (1),
83-93.
Chan, Cindy, Jonah Berger, and Leaf Van Boven (2012), “Identifiable but not Identical:
Combining Social Identity and Uniqueness Motives in Choice,” Journal of Consumer
Research 39 (3), 561-573.
Davidson, Bernard (1984), “A Test of Equity Theory for Marital Adjustment,” Social
Psychology Quarterly, 47, 36-42.
Edwards, Michael C., R. J. Wirth, Carrie R. Houts, and Nuo Xi (2012), “Categorical Data in the
Structural Equation Modeling Framework,” in Handbook of Structural Equation
Modeling, ed. Hoyle Rick, New York, NY: Guilford Press, 195-207.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson (2004) "Narrative Processing: Building Consumer Connections to
Brands," Journal of Consumer Psychology, 14 (1), 168-179.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2003), “You Are What They Eat: The Influence
of Reference Groups on Consumers’ Connections to Brands,” Journal of Consumer
Psychology, 13 (3), 339-348.
Escalas, Jennifer Edson and James R. Bettman (2005), “Self-Construal, Reference Groups, and
Brand Meaning,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 378-389.
Fincham, Frank D., Steven R. H. Beach, and Susan I. Kemp-Fincham S. (1997), “Marital
Quality: A New Theoretical Perspective,” in Satisfaction in Close Relationships, Ed: R. J.
Sternberg & M. Hojjat, New York: Guilford Press, 275–304.
Fournier, Susan (1998), “Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in
Consumer Research,” Journal of Consumer Research, 24 (4), 343-53.
Freeman, Patti A., and Ramon B. Zabriskie (2003), “Leisure and Family Functioning in
Adoptive Families: Implications for Therapeutic Recreation,” Therapeutic Recreation
Journal, 37 (1), 73–93.
Funk, Janette L., and Ronald D. Rogge (2007), “Testing the Ruler with Item Response Theory:
Increasing Precision of Measurement for Relationship Satisfaction with the Couples
Satisfaction Index,” Journal of Family Psychology, 21 (4), 572-83.
Girgis, Sherif, Robert George, and Ryan T. Anderson (2010), “What is Marriage?” Harvard
Journal of Law and Public Policy, 34 (1), 245-287.
13
Guttman, Ruth, and Ada Zohar (1987), “Spouse Similarities in Personality Items: Changes over
Years of Marriage and Implications for Mate Selection,” Behavior Genetics, 17 (2), 17989.
Hill, M. S. (1988), “Marital Stability and Spouses’ Shared Time: A Multidisciplinary
Hypothesis,” Journal of Family Issues, 9, 427-451.
Johnson, Heather A., Ramon B. Zabriskie, and Brian Hill (2006), “The Contribution of Couple
Leisure Involvement, Leisure Time, and Leisure Satisfaction to Marital
Satisfaction,” Marriage & Family Review, 40 (1), 69-91.
Lauaer, Sean, and Carrie Yodanis (2010), “The Deinstitutionalization of Marriage Revisited: A
New Institutional Approach to Change in Marriage,” Journal of Family Theory and
Review, 2 (1), 58 – 72.
Nee, Victor (2005), “The New Institutionalisms in Economics and Sociology, in The Handbook
of Economic Sociology. Ed: N. Smelser and R. Swedberg, Princeton: NJ: Princeton
University Press, 49-74.
Orthner, Dennis K., and Jay A. Mancini (1990), “Leisure Impacts on Family Interaction and
Cohesion,” Journal of Leisure Research, 22, 125-37.
Orthner, Dennis K., and Jay A. Mancini (1991), “Benefits of Leisure for Family Bonding,” in
Benefits of Leisure, Ed: B. L. Driver, P. J. Brown, and G. L. Peterson, State College, PA:
Venture Publishing, 215-301.
Park, C. Whan, Deborah J. MacInnis, Joseph Priester, Andreas B. Eisingerich, and Dawn
Iacobucci (2010), “Brand Attachment and Brand Attitude Strength: Conceptual and
Empirical Differentiation of Two Critical Brand Equity Drivers,” Journal of Marketing,
74 (6), 1-17.
Ross, Catherine E. (1995), “Reconceptualizing Marital Status as a Continuum of Social
Attachment,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57 (1), 129 – 140.
Ross, Catherine E., John Mirowsky, and Karen Goldsteen (1990), “The Impact of the Family on
Health: The Decade in Review,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52 (4), 1059-78.
Sprott, David, Sandor Czellar, and Eric Spangenberg (2009), “The Importance of a General
Measure of Brand Engagement on Market Behavior: Development and Validation of a
Scale,” Journal of Marketing Research, 46 (1), 92-104.
Thomson, Matthew, Deborah J. MacInnis, and C. Whan Park, (2005), “The Ties That Bind:
Measuring the Strength of Consumers’ Emotional Attachments to Brands,” Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 15 (1), 77-91.
Ward, Peter J., Neil R. Lundberg, Ramon B. Zabriskie, and Kristen Berrett (2009), “Measuring
Marital Satisfaction: A Comparison of the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale and the
Satisfaction with Married Life Scale,” Marriage & Family Review, 45 (4), 412-29.
Yodanis, Carrie, and Sean Lauer (2014), “Is Marriage Individualized? What Couples Actually
Do,” Journal of Family Theory and Review, 6 (2), 184-97.
Zauberman, Gal, Rebecca K. Ratner, and B. Kyu Kim (2009), “Memories as Assets: Strategic
Memory Protection in Choice Over Time,” Journal of Consumer Research, 35 (5), 715728.
14
Table 1: Overview of Results
Standardized
Estimate
Hypothesis
Results
H1: Special vs. Mundane Shared Consumption
! Relational Brand Connection
0.19*
Supported
H2: Marital Satisfaction (CSI)
! Relational Brand Connection
0.29*
Supported
H3: Relational Brand Connection
! Perceived Importance of Brand
0.94*
Supported
H4: Perceived importance !Brand Outcomes:
(a) Attitudes
(b) Purchase Intentions
(c) Affect
(d) Separation Distress
(All Supported)
0.41*
0.12*
0.77*
0.71*
*p< .01
Figure 1: The Structural Model
Supported
Supported
Supported
Supported
15
All authors confirm that the work is original, and if accepted, the author Selcan Kara agrees
to attend the full workshop and present the work.